Edwin Omar Flores Tejada v. Elizabeth Godfrey
954 F.3d 1245
9th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are a certified class of noncitizens with reinstated final removal orders placed in withholding-only proceedings in the Western District of Washington and detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) for six months or more without individualized bond hearings.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on statutory claims and enjoined the Government to: (1) provide an IJ bond hearing after six months when release/removal is not imminent (Diouf II construction); (2) require the Government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence (Singh); and (3) provide additional bond hearings every six months thereafter.
- The Government appealed, arguing Diouf II is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez and that the district court misapplied the constitutional-avoidance canon.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the requirement of an individualized bond hearing after six months and the clear-and-convincing burden, but reversed and vacated the district court’s order requiring additional statutory bond hearings every six months.
- The court also vacated the district court’s partial judgment for the Government on Plaintiffs’ due process claims and remanded those constitutional claims for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Diouf II’s construction of § 1231(a)(6) requiring an IJ bond hearing after six months survives Jennings | Diouf II remains controlling; class members entitled to a bond hearing after six months when release/removal not imminent | Jennings undermines Diouf II and precludes reading such a requirement into § 1231(a)(6) | Affirmed: Diouf II is not clearly irreconcilable with Jennings; bond hearing after six months required |
| Applicable burden of proof at the bond hearing | Clear and convincing evidence required (per Singh) | Government challenged applicability given Jennings | Affirmed: Government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether § 1231(a)(6) requires additional periodic bond hearings every six months beyond the initial hearing | Plaintiffs/district court required periodic six-month hearings (relying on Rodriguez III and Diouf II) | Government argued statute does not require periodic hearings; Rodriguez III cannot sustain that after Jennings | Reversed/vacated: no statutory basis for mandatory additional six‑month periodic hearings under § 1231(a)(6) |
| Effect on Plaintiffs’ due process claims after statutory ruling | Statutory win rendered constitutional claims moot | Government appealed statutory rulings and sought full reversal; requested remand if statutory relief altered | Vacated district court’s judgment for the Government on due process claims and remanded for consideration of constitutional claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (construed § 1231(a)(6) to require an IJ bond hearing after prolonged detention)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (established clear-and-convincing burden for government to justify continued immigration detention)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (interpreted periodic bond-hearing requirements and limited extension of the constitutional-avoidance canon)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (construed § 1231(a)(6) to treat six months as a presumptively reasonable post-removal-period detention)
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (uniform application of statutory construction principles)
- Robbins v. Rodriguez, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015) (had required periodic six-month bond hearings under other immigration detention statutes; later affected by Jennings)